Updated open era rankings based on Masters 1000 equivalent and above tournaments

Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000 rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents pre-1990 have very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.

I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field.

How to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year.

Players pre-mid 1985 tending to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Players shouldn't get 6 events where they can gain points in this methodology because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas if a player who won the WCT finals didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event.

Weightings
Slams + Season End Finals and WCT finals (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.4 for Season end finals * (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

* I weight the Season end finals at 1.4. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. Forinstance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. No one has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament - so I thought on average then we could weight it half way between an unbeaten winner (1500 points) and a one match loser (1300 points) but overall winner - to arrive at 1.4. (Currently in the ATP each round robin win is worth 200 points).

Latest Update: Djokovic has extended his lead over Edberg and Wilander and now is heading towards Beckers totals.

Calculations

Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 71.8

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.4)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 59.6

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 50.8

Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 49

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 47.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.4)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.8

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 + 1) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 35.4

Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (2 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 30.6

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.4

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments.

Like to see us talk about Slams + Season end finals + masters 1000 rather than just Slams, when it comes to evaluating players careers. The season end finals is now a tournament with a rich and strong tradition with great depth of players (over 40 years and top 8 respectively) and the masters 1000's or equivalents pre-1990 have very deep fields. Also there is the WCT finals to consider.

I have only included tournaments of Masters 1000 equivalency and greater to take away the discussion about the depth of field that the older players had to deal with vs today. The thinking is that if we only consider these tournaments of top value then that goes someway to levelling the playing field.

How to go somewhere to creating a level playing field between current players who tend to play 4 slams a year vs older players of the 70's and early 80's who tended to play only 3 slams a year.

Players pre-mid 1985 tending to only play 3 Slams a year versus players today playing 4. There is also the other issue of the WCT finals which was a very important event and the need to include it. Players shouldn't get 6 events where they can gain points in this methodology because that would be unfair to modern players who only get 5 events where they can gain points. The solution proposed is to ONLY include Dallas if a player who won the WCT finals didn't play all the slams in that year. That way the modern players are not disadvantaged. So for example, Lendl's 1982 WCT finals win gets included because he didn't play all the slams that year but his 1985 win doesn't get included because he played all the slams that year. In McEnroe's case 4 out of 5 of his WCT finals get included as he played all the slams in 1983 when he won the 1983 Dallas event.

Weightings
Slams + Season End Finals and WCT finals (only if the player didn't play all the Slams that year) + Losing Finals in Slams + Masters 1000 equivalents, with a weighting factor depending on the importance of the event ie 2 x for slams, 1.4 for Season end finals * (including WCT finals), 1.2 for Losing slam finals, 1 x for Masters 1000 equivalents

* I weight the Season end finals at 1.4. The reason for this is that not all of the Masters Cup winners won the tournament in an unbeaten fashion. Forinstance 1 of Federer's 6 wins he lost a match in the round robin. In 2001 Hewitt was an unbeaten winner but as the 2002 winner he lost one round robin match. No one has lost more than 1 match and gone on to win the tournament - so I thought on average then we could weight it half way between an unbeaten winner (1500 points) and a one match loser (1300 points) but overall winner - to arrive at 1.4. (Currently in the ATP each round robin win is worth 200 points).

Latest Update: Djokovic has extended his lead over Edberg and Wilander and now is heading towards Beckers totals.

Calculations

Federer = (17 x 2) + (6 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 71.8

Lendl = (8 x 2) + ((5 + 1) x 1.4)) + (11 x 1.2) + (22 x 1) = 59.6

Sampras = (14 x 2) + (5 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (11 x 1) = 50.8

Nadal = (11 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (21 x 1) = 49

McEnroe (7 x 2) + ((3 + 4) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (19 x 1) = 47.6

Borg = (11 x 2) + ((2 + 1) x 1.4)) + (5 x 1.2) + (15 x 1) = 47.2

Connors = (8 x 2) + ((1 + 2) x 1.4)) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 45.6

Agassi = (8 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (7 x 1.2) + (17 x 1) = 42.8

Becker = (6 x 2) + ((3 + 1) x 1.4)) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 35.4

Djokovic = (5 x 2) + (2 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (13 x 1) = 30.6

Edberg = (6 x 2) + (1 x 1.4) + (5 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 27.4

Wilander = (7 x 2) + (0 x 1.4) + (4 x 1.2) + (8 x 1) = 26.8

NOTE: You may disagree with the weightings. But remember these are not my weightings. They are the present ATP weightings for tournaments.

Both Laver and Rosewall were not good enough to make this list. I guess they didn't practise hard enough on their off days.

The problem with this is that you are comparing players from different eras, especially players from today (where you can play your game everywhere because conditions today are so similar everywhere) with former eras where you had absolutely drastic differences in courts/speed.

In fact Courier was much more suited for this high-speed low bouncing carpet because of his ultra-short-compact strokes swings (and he had a very good serve and he knew how to volley) than any of todays top-players bar Federer.

Long backswing, full swings at the ball was almots impossible in those fast and low-bouncing carpets from the beginning of the 90s (and obviously in the 80s and 70s and before).

Players that adapted well to those conditions usually had very short-compact strokes (or at least they were able to hit like that when playing on those conditions) and were able to snap the ball almost flat with control and pace (you had no more time to do otherwise).

Put 90s varied conditions into 2000-2010 and we would have seen a TOTALLY DIFFERENT scenario (probably many more different players winning big things, GS and WTF, and not always the same three people everywhere).

WTF from 1997 on was SO MUCH SLOWER (and the rest of the indoor tournaments slowed down as well), but WTF of 2012 has been simply impossible to believe how terribly slow it was.

How can you compare players from the last 10 years with former players when tennis was like a totally different sport (with totally opposite conditions along the year, making it much more difficult for the same good players to accumulate points in "your ranking").

Think it seriously, put Nadal or Djokovic in that court against Becker and they would have had to change drastically their strokes to even have a remote chance of competing there.

I appreciate the effort you put into this weighting system but there is no way Lendl ranks above Sampras, Borg and Nadal.

In assessing a player's legacy, Masters series count for far less than slams. The ATP has to assign points to them for the ranking system but that doesn't mean that they are half as important as slams, i.e. a guy who wins 2 Masters series events is not as great as a guy who wins 1 slam, and the history books will certainly not remember him in the same way.

__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2.

I appreciate the effort you put into this weighting system but there is no way Lendl ranks above Sampras, Borg and Nadal.

In assessing a player's legacy, Masters series count for far less than slams. The ATP has to assign points to them for the ranking system but that doesn't mean that they are half as important as slams, i.e. a guy who wins 2 Masters series events is not as great as a guy who wins 1 slam, and the history books will certainly not remember him in the same way.

But you have to recognize that part of Lendl's claim to fame is not just his record number of master's equivalents, but also his second most major finals (Federer broke his record, but he has more than Sampras).

But you have to recognize that part of Lendl's claim to fame is not just his record number of master's equivalents, but also his second most major finals (Federer broke his record, but he has more than Sampras).

Yes I know that. Plus the fact that Lendl won 5 YEC's, the same number as Sampras, and one fewer than Federer.

But I still can't rate him ahead of Sampras, Borg or Nadal.

__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2.

Yes I know that. Plus the fact that Lendl won 5 YEC's, the same number as Sampras, and one fewer than Federer.

But I still can't rate him ahead of Sampras, Borg or Nadal.

I can not simply compare numbers from different eras and pretend that that means something.

How could I say Nadal>Lendl? Lendl had to serve and volley (on both serves) to try to win Wimbledon, had to play a totally different game than what he did at other venues. In spite of that he played 2 finals there and five other SF.

He was absolutely great on indoor carpet (even the faster ones), great on clay, immense on hard courts.

He won 8 GS in an era totally different than today (totally polarized conditions and varied competitive playing styles), he won 5 WTF ( 9 consecutive finals there).

The only criteria on which Lendl beats Sampras are slam finals (19 > 18 ) and minor tournaments (Masters and below) won. It's not even as if Lendl completed the career slam so you can't use that to put him ahead of Sampras.

Of course Lendl is an all-time great but no-one would sensibly rank him ahead of Sampras.

__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2.

I can not simply compare numbers from different eras and pretend that that means something.

How could I say Nadal>Lendl? Lendl had to serve and volley (on both serves) to try to win Wimbledon, had to play a totally different game than what he did at other venues. In spite of that he played 2 finals there and five other SF.

He was absolutely great on indoor carpet (even the faster ones), great on clay, immense on hard courts.

He won 8 GS in an era totally different than today (totally polarized conditions and varied competitive playing styles), he won 5 WTF ( 9 consecutive finals there).

He was nš1 for 270 weeks.

It is hard to imagine something better than that IN THAT ERA.

Yes that's true but you can only compete and win in the era you're born in, you can't hold it against Nadal for not winning on fast grass when those conditions didn't exist in his era.

The fact remains that Nadal has won more slams than Lendl despite competing in the same era as the GOAT.

__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2.

from 2013 on, in RG all the players MUST PLAY WITH EXACTLY THE SAME RACQUET, for example the Prince Original Graphite.

In Wimbledon all players MUST PLAY WITH THE WILSON WOOD RACQUET.

In the USOPEN all players MUST PLAY WITH THE HEAD PRESTIGE.

In the AusOPEN all players MUST PLAY WITH THE BABOLAT AEROPRO DRIVE.

In the next 10 years you won't see players winning 10+ GS under this scenario.

Would you then say that these future players were "WORSE" THAN former 10+ GS winners players?

They would not be worse, they would simply be from a different era where it was much more difficult to win a high nš of GS tournaments (because of the variation of conditions).

The greats find a way to win in any era, no matter what the opposition and conditions. Lendl's 8-11 slam finals record is appalling for an all-time great. Nadal on the other hand has an 11-5 record despite competing against Federer throughout his career.

__________________
Sloane Stephens and Laura Robson: future WTA world No 1 and 2.

If you make a "decathlon" consisting in 10 events EACH ONE OF THEM being the 100 metres track race, then probably the best at that, for example, Usain Bolt, would win probably 9 or even the 10 events. This is "homogeneous conditions".

Instead, if you make a "real" decathlon, with 10 totally different events ( 100 metres, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 metres, 110 metres hurdles, discus throw, pole vault, javelin throw, 1500 metres), you won't see a single athlete winning the ten different events. This is "NOT homogeneous conditions".

This is an exaggeration, of course. But you can easily understand the idea.

In the last ten years in tennis, it is MUCH MUCH MORE EASY for the best (or the two best) tennis players to win EVERYTHING (and so winning a very high number of GS tournaments) than in any other former era.

For the very same reason, for those not being the very two or three best players in the world (for those who rank between nš4 and say nš20 ) it is much more difficult to win a GS in this era than in any other former era.

Homogeneus conditions produce logically this result (very few players, one or two mostly, winning almost all the GS tournaments, and very difficult for a non-top-10 player to win a GS).

Varied conditions and different competitive playing styles (like it alwas was in tennis) produce logically the opposite effect (more different players winning GS tournaments, but much more difficult for one player or two to win 10+ GS).

This is "the decathlon example" for those that do not understand what is going on in tennis in the last 10 years or so.

I appreciate the effort you put into this weighting system but there is no way Lendl ranks above Sampras, Borg and Nadal.

In assessing a player's legacy, Masters series count for far less than slams. The ATP has to assign points to them for the ranking system but that doesn't mean that they are half as important as slams, i.e. a guy who wins 2 Masters series events is not as great as a guy who wins 1 slam, and the history books will certainly not remember him in the same way.

I had the same subjective feeling as you. However, i wanted to create an objective ranking system. Regarding the weightings, they are not mine, the atp says Masters 1000s re worth half a slam. I personally feel that slams should be much more....but that is just my opinion. The fact is they aren't according to the ATP.

So I just put these out there using the current ATP weightings.

Just as an exercise, if you made slams 4 x masters 1000s instead of the ATP 2x and made wtf and slam finals the same proportion larger, Lendl is still ahead of Sampras

The only criteria on which Lendl beats Sampras are slam finals (19 > 18 ) and minor tournaments (Masters and below) won. It's not even as if Lendl completed the career slam so you can't use that to put him ahead of Sampras.

Of course Lendl is an all-time great but no-one would sensibly rank him ahead of Sampras.

Timnz's approach is solely base on the points of all the important ATP events, and when you total it all up, Lendl has more points. He didn't include the ranking. And if you include those stats, why not include Lendl's multiple years with 90+ winning %, 96 titles, 8 straight USO finals, etc.

This is not to say Lendl had a better career than Sampras, and anyone would take Sampras over Lendl. But base on the OP's criteria, Lendl edged Sampras.